Wright & Taylor, Inc. v. Smith
Decision Date | 23 May 1958 |
Citation | 315 S.W.2d 624 |
Parties | WRIGHT & TAYLOR, INC., Appellant, v. Cleo SMITH Appellee. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
Lively M. Wilson, Stites, Wood, Helm & Peabody, Louisville, for appellant.
Julius Leibson, Louisville, for appellee.
This appeal is taken from a judgment against Wright & Taylor, Incorporated, in the sum of $3,000. The appellant is owner of the Francis Building in Louisville, Kentucky. Appellee claims to have been injured in a basement hallway of appellant's building and charges appellant with negligence in maintaining the premises.
We find an accurate statement of facts in appellant's brief and we quote:
* * *
'The appellant did not lease that portion of the premises on which the accident occurred, but retained possession thereof for the common use of all tenants. * * *'
In Home Realty Co. v. Carius, 189 Ky. 228, 224 S.W. 751, we expressed concisely the landlord's duty under similar circumstances and we quote:
See also Carver v. Howard, Ky., 280 S.W.2d 708.
It is insisted by appellant that the evidence introduced shows no breach of such duty and that the court erred in not granting a directed verdict. This is urged as the principal ground for reversal of the judgment and we shall deal with it first. Appellee is the only person who testified as to how the injury was inflicted and the substance of her testimony has heretofore been stated. She used a physician to prove her disabilities and the building superintendent to prove that the hallway, manhole, and manhole cover were in the exclusive control of the appellant. She made no effort to specify any particular cause for the tilting of the manhole cover. Obviously the case could not have been submitted to the jury except upon application of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine. Appellant insists that the doctrine should not have been applied, because of the absence of elements requisite to its application. In the case of J. C. Penney Co. v. Livingston, Ky., 271 S.W.2d 906, 908, we pointed out the three essential elements as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Blue Grass Restaurant Co. v. Franklin
...Starks Building Company v. Eltinge, Ky., 269 S.W.2d 240 (1954); Mackey v. Allen, Ky., 396 S.W.2d 55 (1965); Wright and Taylor, Inc. v. Smith, Ky., 315 S.W.2d 624 (1958) and Home Realty Co. v. Carius, 189 Ky. 228, 224 S.W. 751 620 (1961); Com., Dept. of Highways v. Stocker, et al., Ky., 423 ......
-
Begay v. Livingston
...the landlord. Panaroni v. Johnson, 158 Conn. 92, 256 A.2d 246 (1969); Walsh v. Phillips, 399 S.W.2d 123 (Mo.1966); Wright & Taylor, Inc. v. Smith, 315 S.W.2d 624 (Ky.1958); Rothenberg v. Monarch Refrigeration Company of Chicago, 9 Ill.App.2d 565, 133 N.E.2d 763 (1956); Haag v. Harris, 4 Cal......
-
Milby v. Mears
...Totten v. Parker, Ky.,428 S.W.2d 231 (1967); Spurling v. Paterno-Mayflower, Inc., Ky., 358 S.W.2d 503 (1962); Wright & Taylor, Inc. v. Smith, Ky., 315 S.W.2d 624 (1958). In this case, the issues of the landlord's negligence and the tenant's contributory negligence were submitted to the jury......
-
Slovin v. Gauger
...of the applicable principles underlying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, I can see no reason to apply it. Wright & Taylor, Inc. v. Smith, 315 S.W.2d 624, 627-628 (Ky.Ct. of App.1958) is distinguishable, since the landlord there had reserved to himself the use of the basement where the pla......